Laserfiche WebLink
Page 9 of 10 <br /> <br />The purpose of this task is to define and summarize the City Project. The task will include the <br />following: <br /> <br />Task 3.1 - Define City Project Groundwater Supply Improvements <br />1. Define and summarize groundwater supply improvements under the following assumptions: <br />a. Two groundwater wells would be constructed for redundancy considerations. The <br />wells would be located at Tennis and Community Park and Hansen Park. Siting of <br />the wells within the parks would have similar criteria to that outlined in the Joint <br />Project. <br />b. Each well is assumed to have a pumping capacity of approximately 2,500 gpm. <br />This would enable the City to pump its GPQ of 3,500 acre-feet/year (with full <br />redundancy) and meet max day demand (with no redundancy) proportional to the <br />City’s GPQ (4,400 gpm based on an annual average to max day factor of 2). <br />c. Each well facility will include equipment to support chloramination and <br />fluoridation. <br />2. Develop capital cost estimates. <br />3. Develop annual operation and maintenance cost estimates. <br />a. Cost estimates will be based on an annual production of 3,500 AFY and include <br />items corresponding to that included in the Joint Project (i.e. staffing, electrical <br />power, chemical treatment, mechanical / electrical / instrumentation maintenance, <br />etc). <br />Task 3.2 – City Distribution Improvements <br />1. Summary of improvements as recommended by Akel (see Attachment 2) to properly deliver <br />water directly into the City’s distribution system. <br />2. Capital cost estimates <br />a. The Consultant will review the capital cost estimates provided by Akel and make <br />recommended adjustments including escalation of costs so they correspond to the <br />same estimate year of the groundwater supply improvements. <br />b. Fluoride dosing for City’s GPQ would occur at the new groundwater well facilities. <br />Therefore, no improvements are required at the existing turnouts. <br />Task 4 – Alternatives Comparison <br />The purpose of this task is to compare the three project alternatives and make a recommendation <br />on the preferred alternative. The task will include the following: <br />Task 4.1 – Develop 50 Year Life Cycle Cost Comparison <br />1. The Consultant will perform a 50-year life cycle cost comparison of each alternative that <br />includes capital and operation and maintenance costs. <br />Task 4.2 – Develop Weighted Evaluation and Score Alternatives <br />1. The Consultant will perform an alternatives evaluation that includes the following: <br />a. Development of weighted evaluation criteria that includes at a minimum <br />community & environmental impacts, life cycle cost, long-term water quality / <br />treatment risk, implementation ease / schedule, and operational flexibility / <br />reliability (including local control). <br />Docusign Envelope ID: A2CEC78C-F0FD-4D4D-9F39-237EDFC2492E